I know this may sound niave, but why are Tak mounts so expensive? Are they "that" good? I've never looked through one of their scopes (although I just got permission from the boss to start shopping used ) let alone pushed anything around on one of their mounts, but they seem "pricey" to put it nicely... even the non-goto or non-motorized.

I'm of the opinion that they are a little pricey myself especially when you get into EM-400/500 territory. I have owned an NJP and while a FINE mount, it lacked a few features that I found I wanted. I paid more for a slightly larger mount (AP 900), but it offered nearly all of the features that I wanted. The one thing that the Taks have that no one else has is a dandy polar scope.

I'm assuming you're refering to EQ mounts here and as I've never used a Tak EQ I can't comment. However, I have several Tak Lapides Teegul Alt-Az mounts and they're wonderful. Extremely smooth, great slo-mo controls and very solid especially when mated with a Tak or other high end tripod.

And yup, they're kinda' expensive too--of course you could go to the Discmounts or the HalfHitch if you wanted to get REALLY expensive.

Seems much of it is what you really want to get out of a mount and what's important to you. That said, being a visual observer and an alt-az fan, the cost of high end EQ mounts escapes me. But if I were into AP and/or extremely detailed observing and recording I'm sure the cost would be totally worth it and easily justified.

Agreeing with the others, expensive is a relative term - and value is more about what you want/need relative to what you have to pay for it. If it wont do what you need it to do, well then it doesn't matter? Also why pay for features you dont need or use.

I think less subjective is 'quality' in terms of craftmanship and materials, features. Whatever the expense/value plots out to, Tak stuff is very high quality in terms of it's 'make' and 'performance'. The 2 are pretty tightly bound together. So are AP and others that are $$$.

I put a lot of importance on the mount, not a place I'd lowball if possible. For me a good value worked out to the CGE mount, is it the best? - definately not. Has it worked for me... yes (by and large). The one mount has allowed me to use 8 different scopes (about eual refractor and cat's, in piggyback config's). I could have spent a lot more money and bought an EM400 temma, and maybe will do so in the future. I couldn't have done this with a CG5 or a whole slew of others - or at least some scopes and especially imaging would have taxed it to the 'no/go' point? As said, think through what you'd want and need and try to think of value more in terms of what you have to pay for that. To me, expensive is buying something and then having to buy it again and again, and not really gaining anything for the experience.

As said, think through what you'd want and need and try to think of value more in terms of what you have to pay for that. To me, expensive is buying something and then having to buy it again and again, and not really gaining anything for the experience.

Yes - Thanks for all of the input guys! It's always been what I don't know and learned the hard way that results in my buying two or three times... Hence the question.

While I don't do any imaging (or plan to in the near future) I do appreciate solid worry free mechanicals. I have kept and used my current scope and equipment (sans EPs) for 23 years so long term quality is important.

Let me make it easy.. It is because it costs a lot of money to live in Japan these days.. If you build anything in quantities less than a zillion, you have to amortize your costs over fewer samples.

And of course to JUSTIFY the higher cost, you better make it nicer and to higher standards than the competitive product, or you will find yourself unemployed in Japan, which is as I mentioned, a very expensive place to live.

Now if you think I have over-simplified this, then I think you should google "Tata Nano." Tata has sold 200,000 Nano cars that sell NEW for $2100. Not $21,000. $2100. Two Thousand, one hundred dollars (thought to be fair, only 20% of the Nano's have been the base $2100 model. Most have been the Deluxe model with AC and Power Window that sell for slightly less than $3000). The have sold these 200,000 cars in just 4 months, making the Tata Nano the fastest selling car in history.

Now if EVERYONE in India that wants a Tata Nano also wanted a Tak-like quality mount, I am pretty sure that the retail price would get down to maybe $300. I mean if they can build a WHOLE FREAKING CAR and sell it for $2100 AND MAKE A PROFIT , then don't you think they could do the same thing for a high quality telescope mount?

It is a nice mount made in small numbers to meet a limited demand, and made in a country where the standard of living is high, and the COST of maintianing that standard of living is correspondingly high. To make a profit worth keeping the mount in production, they have to charge a lot of money for it. Simple.

It might be simple. But you have only described the reason for a price in absolute terms. In relative terms all mount makers face most of the same issues, particularly the one related to low volume.

Rather than take a cost based approach to the explanation, I would suggest that Taks are competitively priced when one compares them with mounts of similar quality - AP and Paramount ME. In choosing between Tak and AP individual buyers will adjust the price + or - to reflect the differences in features that matter to them. Same goes for the decision regarding an AP1200, 3200 or Paramount.

If any of these mounts weren't competitively priced (regardless of their manufacturing cost) they just plain wouldn't sell. And that is not happening.